Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

43445Re: McPherson's Flanking Movement at Port Gibson

Expand Messages
  • James W. Durney
    Apr 15 10:55 AM
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
      > geez, how the heck did I do that?
      > anyway, care to comment? My question was, what conceivable motive
      > would there be to discredit McPherson? Is this a case of Bearss'
      > interpretation becoming gospel, and many other historians following in
      > unquestioning lock-step?

      The "conceivable motive" is very simple, you find something that you do
      not like in their work. What is is matters little, the important thing
      is you want/need them to be wrong about this. Since Bearss & McPherson
      have excellent credentials copule with an impressive body of work the
      only option is to attack them. To make you idea sound better, you need
      to do this at every opportunity and as often as possible. This works
      best on the idea that if you throw enough, mud some of it might stick.
      While I agree that no one is right 100% of the time, this type of
      insessant personal attack is silly. In addition, none of these so-
      called "errors" are more than small details that have little or no
      impact on history. However, to the attacker, this so-call "error"
      invalidate some very impressive work becuse they just know they
      are "right".

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic